In addition, other objects, desirable features and characteristics will become apparent from the subsequent summary and detailed description, and the appended claims, taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawings and this background.
Currently, Unmanned Air Vehicles and/or Remotely Piloted Aircrafts have certain drawbacks relating to take-off and/or landing aid or support systems employed therein, because, for example, certain national and international safety requirements may not yet be fulfilled entirely. For instance, an instrument landing system or microwave landing system, which systems may refer to a ground-based instrument approach providing precision guidance to an aircraft approaching and/or landing on a runway or taking-off from a runway, may be categorized in three different categories (CAT I-III) according to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). These categories specify, amongst others, an alert height and a certain minimum visibility range for aircraft taking-off or landing on a runway.
Currently available systems are limited to operations in category CAT IIIb, wherein manual intervention of a pilot is still required. Moreover, ground equipment required for this category may be associated with rather high acquisition, installation, and maintenance costs. Therefore, ground stations of category CAT III are only available at large heavily congested commercial airports, which are at the present time neither suitable as main operating bases for routine operations of UAVs or RPAs nor as emergency landing sites for UAVs or RPAs.
Apart from that, required ground equipment usually comprises a fixed installation with high impact on airport infrastructure, thereby requiring extended periods of time for a respective survey, a system setup, and an acceptance testing procedure. Consequently, instrument landing systems and microwave landing systems may not be suitable options for military operations, which may require a rapid deployment to airfields with no pre-existing ground infrastructure.
Furthermore, equipment and gear applied as take-off and landing aid systems may have some shortcomings, in particular when taken alone. For instance regarding Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS), such as e.g. the Global Positioning System (GPS) as well as the Russian and European pendants GLONASS and Galileo, accuracy, integrity, continuity, and availability may not be sufficient for some take-off and landing operations. This relates to both civil service GPS, such as e.g. C/A GPS, and military service GPS, such as e.g. P(Y) GPS. However, civil service GPS may further be subject to unintentional (jamming) and intentional (spoofing) GPS Signal-In-Space degradation and alteration by third parties, which may be considered a major drawback of these technologies.
Also, Ground Based Augmentation Systems such as e.g. the American Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS) may not be suitable and certifiable for CAT IIIc operations. Moreover, such systems lack a worldwide availability and robustness in terms of their signals provided. Also, ground equipment required for such technology may involve rather high acquisition, installation, and maintenance costs. Although appearing to be more suited for take-off and landing aid systems, nearly the same applies to Space Based Augmentation Systems, such as e.g. the American Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS), and the European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service (EGNOS).
Also unconventional take-off and landing aid systems such as Radar Tracker Systems or Laser Tracker Systems have certain drawbacks. For instance, such systems lackcertification to civil aviation standards as single navigation means and may not be suitable for all-weather operations, as it is the case with Laser Tracker Systems.